1. Rule, returnable forthwith.

This application is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.254/2008 registered at Chalisgaon Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. on 19th October, 2008.

2. Apprehending arrest, the present applicant filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Jalgaon being Criminal Bail Application No.1288 of 2008 which came to be rejected on 16.1.2009. Hence, this application.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the contents in the complaint and submitted that the only allegation against applicant is that he has borrowed money to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/-. He further invited my attention to page 35 and 36 to state that the applicant is a sportsman and he has received award from State. He invited my attention to page no.37 of the compilation to show that the present applicant is working as a Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. since 1987 and a false complaint is filed. Though another complaint is filed against one Ajit Ghate, a separate complaint is filed against the present applicant. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the complaint is filed just to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the Directors and Managing Director of the Bank are responsible for the financial irregularities and disbursement of loan to various persons for which crime is registered. Present applicant is only a borrower of the Bank. He cannot be held responsible for the acts of the Directors and managing Director. Therefore, he deserves to be released on bail since he is working as Manager in Bharat Petroleum Corporation.

4. Thelearned A.P.P. appearing for the State invited my attention to the contents of the complaint and submitted that so far the offence registered against the present applicant is under various sections of I.P.C. including section 120B of I.P.C. He further submitted that the present applicant has taken loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the said Bank and even a single pai is not repaid by the applicant. He submitted that not only the applicant is involved in the present crime but, he is also involved in two other Crimes namely Crime No.216/2008 and 259/2008. It is further submitted that though bail was granted by the Sessions Court to the present applicant on condition to attend the police station, the present applicant has violated the condition and he did not attend the police station. Therefore, since the applicant is involved in various crimes and cheated the Bank, this Court may not grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

5. While considering the scope of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code in case of Adri Dharan Das V. State of West Bengal reported in (2005 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1013), relying on the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment in case of Balachand Jain V. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 366), the Supreme Court in para 7 has observed thus:-

The power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty then power is to be exercised under Section 438. The power being of important nature it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums i.e. the Court of Session or the High Court. It is the power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence. The object which is sought to be achieved by Section 438 of the Code is that the moment a person is arrested if he has already obtained an order from the Court of Session or High Court, he shall be released immediately on bail without being sent to jail.

6. It would also be relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the cas